[Info-vax] Unix tools on VMS, was: Re: September 6, 2016 - new Roadmap and State of the Port updates now on VSI website

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2016-09-11 12:18:10 +0000, David Froble said:

> Simon Clubley wrote:
>> 
>> Really simple example: GNU diff is vastly superior to the VMS version.
> 
> Never having used it, I'll have to take your word for this ....

GNU and BSD diff tools are easily better, yes.

bash has some severe ugly, it's cryptic, and it can be wildly 
inconsistent, but it and the capabilities of the Unix command tools are 
generally superior to what are available on OpenVMS via DCL and the DCL 
utilities.

Not that "''DCL'" syntax &is always 'entirely' clear to new users, 
"either."   DCL is definitely simpler, it's more typing, but it's 
unfortunately also certainly not gotten around to dealing with regular 
expressions or pipes or functions at all well, nor limitations around 
dealing with (no metadata, untagged, always-assumed ASCII or maybe MCS) 
text.

bash has limits here too, but there are bash ports that deal with UTF-8.

>> With GNU diff, as well as having a much more readable unified diff 
>> output format, you can also compare differences between two directory 
>> trees.
> 
> Now, what was I writing?  Oh, yes, implement on VMS.  I've got a simple 
> tool I call COMPARE that does just that, on VMS, compare differences in 
> two directories.  Most likely not the same, and I'll admit the tool 
> could be greatly improved.  Works for me.

Yes, we all have those tools.    Which work for us.   Which we all 
implement.   
http://www.digiater.nl/openvms/freeware/v80/hoffman_examples/diff_directories.com 
   Which should tell you a little something about the adequacy of the 
base operating system for its appointed tasks, too.

>> Second example: bash offers all kinds of UI features not present in DCL 
>> or which have been implemented in a clumsy manner in DCL (such as 
>> searching for previous commands).
> 
> Ok, taking your word for this also.
> 
> But, how does any of what you've written justify blaming VMS for not 
> being able to just compile, link, and run the *ix tools?  That's my 
> issue.  And my question.
> 
> If you want the tools on VMS, then feel free to implement them there.  
> That's how they got on *ix, right?  Somebody did some work.

With OpenVMS, various C APIs either don't work (e.g. SSIO), or are 
missing or down-revision (q.v. JR's "whiteboard"), or are less than 
integrated (q.v. TLS, PKE).   So we all go off and implement the pieces 
and parts, or hack around them.    We then all have different ports or 
different versions, and with different issues and vulnerabilities, 
different maintenance scheduled and updates.   We end up with bugs and 
misfeatures and such, too.    With the associated costs.

This isn't just C, either.   The same general problem holds for 
application code written to newer other and newer compilers, too.    
BASIC needs more than a little work to update it and overhaul it, and 
to haul it past the 1980s.  Or to replace it with a different language 
that works as well or better.    We have the limits of the older non-OO 
or non-RT APIs, too.    But that's all fodder for another time.






-- 
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC